Metaphysics and Science

[Anilkumar]

Hi everybody,

 

Can we regard Metaphysics as the seeker of the ultimate answer to "the why's of everything". And Science its lower degree branch concerning calculations and predictions?

 

Thanks.

[swansont]

I don't think so. Metaphysics is philosophy. It may ask the big questions, but it doesn't answer them. If you can find an answer, it's science.

[Anilkumar]

I don't think so. Metaphysics is philosophy. It may ask the big questions, but it doesn't answer them. If you can find an answer, it's science.

 

Does it mean that Metaphysics has not answered any of the questions raised by it?

[Moontanman]

Does it mean that Metaphysics has not answered any of the questions raised by it?

 

 

That is exactly what it means IMHO

[Marat]

Unfortunately 'metaphysics' is often confused with 'mysticism,' but nothing could be further from the truth. As understood by modern philosophers, 'metaphysics' is the attempt to bring rational clarification to problems and puzzles generated by empirical science, so it is strictly complementary to science, not contradictory to it. Many modern texts on philosophy of science, for example, examine the implications for causality, time, matter, and space of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, and without a Ph.D. in physics few readers could really appreciate all that they are saying. This trend in philosophical thinking, viewing it as developing the conceptual implications of empirical science, can be traced back to the late 18th century and Kant's 'Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science,' which defined the 'special metaphysics of nature' as the foundational principles of natural science -- developed not as a priori deductions from some pre-existing, logically intuited, rationally deduced basis of science -- but instead as an effort to organize rationally the foundational implications of the results of empirical science.

[DrRocket]

Does it mean that Metaphysics has not answered any of the questions raised by it?

 

 

If all the philosophers who ever lived were laid end to end they would not reach ...............................................a conclusion.

[charles brough]

As understood by modern philosophers, 'metaphysics' is the attempt to bring rational clarification to problems and puzzles generated by empirical science, so it is strictly complementary to science, not contradictory to it.

. . . as you imply, it is philosphy.

[PeterJ]

Actually metaphysics produces a very clear result. It is only that metaphyscians rarely accept it as being a result, preferring to believe that it does not produce one. Mysticism is precisely consistent with metaphysics and neither mysticism nor metaphysics is inconsistent with science. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe this without a proof, but such proofs exist. Mysticism establishes in experience what metaphysics establishes in logic, and the natural sciences, as far as they go, produce results consistent with both. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise these days, given the availability of the necessary information.

 

But I don't think metaphysics produces any answers to the 'why' question, anymore than science, unless it is where the answer is a simple matter of causation and therefore leads to an endless regression.

 

Kant puts the result of metaphysics as that all contradictory pairs of propositions about the world as whole are undecidable. Equivalently, Bradley concludes that metaphysics cannot produce a positive result (and not no result at all). Nagarjana shows that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. This is the perennial result of metaphysics stated three ways. But not everyone wants to call it a result, so the layman is often led to believe that metaphysics does not produce one.

 

Only in mysticism and dialethism is its result accepted at face value. Elsewhere a paradigm shift would be required if metaphysics is not to be dismissed as producing no result.

Edited February 6, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Hi everybody,

 

Can we regard Metaphysics as the seeker of the ultimate answer to "the why's of everything". And Science its lower degree branch concerning calculations and predictions?

 

Thanks.

 

What predictions does Metaphysics makes? and What method does it give to test its predictions? Without answering the above two questions its too far away from answering "the why's of everything".

 

I think its more sensible to regard that Religion as the seeker of the ultimate answer to "the why's of everything" because it works in the same way as science does, it has theoretical knowledge in the form of scriptures and methodical knowledge in the form of revealation, its an evolving thing and it can achieve perfection, if we really study them and also have some practical knowledge. All religion leads to the truth of God, So indirectly God answers the "why's of everything" to some extent.

 

 

 

Actually metaphysics produces a very clear result. It is only that metaphyscians rarely accept it as being a result, preferring to believe that it does not produce one. Mysticism is precisely consistent with metaphysics and neither mysticism nor metaphysics is inconsistent with science. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe this without a proof, but such proofs exist. Mysticism establishes in experience what metaphysics establishes in logic, and the natural sciences, as far as they go, produce results consistent with both. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise these days, given the availability of the necessary information.

 

But I don't think metaphysics produces any answers to the 'why' question, anymore than science, unless it is where the answer is a simple matter of causation and therefore leads to an endless regression.

 

Kant puts the result of metaphysics as that all contradictory pairs of propositions about the world as whole are undecidable. Equivalently, Bradley concludes that metaphysics cannot produce a positive result (and not no result at all). Nagarjana shows that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. This is the perennial result of metaphysics stated three ways. But not everyone wants to call it a result, so the layman is often led to believe that metaphysics does not produce one.

 

Only in mysticism and dialethism is its result accepted at face value. Elsewhere a paradigm shift would be required if metaphysics is not to be dismissed as producing no result.

 

 

Mystics don't read the texts of metaphysicians to have experiential knowledge, they read the scriptures of religion and pray to God for revealation. There is no one-to-one correspondance between mysticism and metaphysics.

Edited February 6, 2012 by immortal

[PeterJ]

Mystics don't read the texts of metaphysicians to have experiential knowledge, they read the scriptures of religion and pray to God for revealation. There is no one-to-one correspondance between mysticism and metaphysics.

Well no. Reading a book gives experiential knowledge of reading a book, and praying for revelations gives experiential knowledge of praying for revelations. As you know, mysticism is about rather more profound revelations and realisations, and these are reported as being directly consistent with the results of metaphysics.

 

My point was that mysticism and metaphysics are consistent in their conclusions. Iow, experience and logic do not lead to different places. But 'one to one correspondance' is not how I'd put it.

 

I think the difference between us is that I can prove what I am proposing.

Edited February 6, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

 

Well no. Reading a book gives experiential knowledge of reading a book, and praying for revelations gives experiential knowledge of praying for revelations.

 

 

First you need to understand how science works, science works by falsification not by verification. That's where it strength lies and that's how it answers questions removing uncertainty in its theory and observations little by little.

 

To many people, mathematics presents a significant barrier to their understanding of science. Certainly, mathematics has been the language of physics for four hundred years and more, and it is difficult to make progress in understanding the physical world without it. Why is this the case? One reason is that the physical world appears to be largely governed by the laws of cause and effect (although these break down to some extent in the quantum context, as we shall see). Mathematics is commonly used to analyse such causal relationships: as a very simple example, the mathematical statement ‘two plus two equals four’ implies that if we take any two physical objects and combine them with any two others, we will end up with four objects. To be a little more sophisticated, if an apple falls from a tree, it will fall to the ground and we can use mathematics to calculate the time this will take, provided we know the initial height of the apple and the strength of the force of gravity acting on it. This exemplifies the importance of mathematics to science, because the latter aims to make predictions about the future behaviour of a physical system and to compare these with the results of measurement. Our belief in the reliability of the underlying theory is confirmed or refuted by the agreement, or lack of it, between prediction and measurement. To test this sensitively we have to represent the results of both our calculations and our measurements as numbers.

 

To illustrate this point further, consider the following example. Suppose it is night time and three people have developed theories about whether and when daylight will return. Alan says that according to his theory it will be daylight at some undefined time in the future; Bob says that daylight will return and night and day will follow in a regular pattern from then on; and Cathy has developed a mathematical theory which predicts that the sun will rise at 5.42 a.m. and day and night will then follow in a regular twenty-four-hour cycle, with the sun rising at predictable times each day. We then observe what happens. If the sun does rise at precisely the times Cathy predicted, all three theories will be verified, but we are likely to give hers considerably more credence. This is because if the sun had risen at some other time, Cathy’s theory would have been disproved, or falsified, whereas Alan and Bob’s would still have stood. As the philosopher Karl Popper pointed out, it is this potential for falsification that gives a physical theory its strength. Logically, we cannot know for certain that it is true, but our faith in it will be strengthened the more rigorous are the tests that it passes. To falsify Bob’s theory, we would have to observe the sun rise, but at irregular times on different days, while Alan’s theory would be falsified only if the sun never rose

again. The stronger a theory is, the easier it is in principle to find that it is false, and the more likely we are to believe it if we fail to do so. In contrast, a theory that is completely incapable of being disproved is often described as ‘metaphysical’ or unscientific.

 

-- Alastair I.M. Rae

 

As you know, mysticism is about rather more profound revelations and realisations, and these are reported as being directly consistent with the results of metaphysics.

 

My point was that mysticism and metaphysics are consistent in their conclusions. Iow, experience and logic do not lead to different places. But 'one to one correspondance' is not how I'd put it.

 

Metaphysics won't take the mystics to the rather more profound revealations and realizations, it is religious scriptures which takes them there.

 

A mystic understands and repeats the phrase(mantra) in his religious scripture and his experiences should be identical to what the semantic of the phrase says and he shouldn't experience anything other than that. The experience had by the student should be identical to the one had by his master, that's how mysticism works.

 

I think the difference between us is that I can prove what I am proposing.

 

I can put the religious scripture for falsification and give a method to testify it and that's how my faith in that scripture will be strengthened the more the religious scripture stood the tests of its time.

 

You can only verify its conclusion but you cannot remove the skepticism as to whether the thing which is described through the logic of metaphysics is same as the thing described through the experiential knowledge of mysticism. This is where metaphyics fails. One cannot be certain about what it is describing in reality. This is where a one-to-one correspondance between theory and the reality which it claims to map becomes essential.

 

 

[PeterJ]

First you need to understand how science works, science works by falsification not by verification. That's where it strength lies and that's how it answers questions removing uncertainty in its theory and observations little by little.

Yes. Scientific theorising works as you say. But empriricism is not theorising and it works by verification. That is, we verify theories by the use of empiricism. In the same way, metaphysics is theorising and works by falsification, or what Peirce calls 'abduction', (inference to the best explanation), while mysticism proper is all about empriricism and verification. I think we agree about all this.

 

Metaphysics won't take the mystics to the rather more profound revealations and realizations, it is religious scriptures which takes them there.

Yes. I would just add that the scriptures would not be necessary.

 

Aristotle pointed out that logic cannot prove anything about reality, and he is quite obviously correct. Certain or true knowledge does not come from logic. We agree about this. Neither does it come from books, in my view, but here we seem to disagree.

 

A mystic understands and repeats the phrase(mantra) in his religious scripture and his experiences should be identical to what the semantic of the phrase says and he shouldn't experience anything other than that. The experience had by the student should be identical to the one had by his master, that's how mysticism works.

This appears to me to be a complete misunderstanding. I have never even heard such a thing said before. Maybe this the correct approach to practice for those in some tradtions who repeat mantras, but it is not true that mysticism, or the practice of understanding reality, requires the saying of mantras. You cannot put such views on behalf of mysticism. It is misunderstood enough already. If you re-examine your words you will see that they state that Zen Master Hongzhi's method of 'silent illumination' is not part of mysticism, nor the method of counting the breaths, nor a million other methods. Mantras are optional, like this or that way of gripping a golf club.

 

Of course, all roads lead to Rome. It would be inevitable that we will all have similar experience along the way to the truth since we're heading in the same direction, and in the end we will all arrive at same destination. But every journey will be unique as we all start in different places. It is very clear form the literature that it is wrong to say that this method or that method is necessary, as if there is a rule book. There is no 'should' about it. A form of practice may require a consistent approach, such that the method 'should' be followed if it to be effective, but there are endless methods and we can make up our own if we like. It is just a question of what works best for us.

 

I can put the religious scripture for falsification and give a method to testify it and that's how my faith in that scripture will be strengthened the more the religious scripture stood the tests of its time.

Yes. Books like the Bible are so difficult to interpret that their longetivity is only a quite weak indication of their truth, at least in science and philosophy, but it is certainly telling that the perennial philosophy remains perennial to this day, since as a philosophical scheme it is more clear and is testable in metaphysics and even to some extent in physics.

 

You can only verify its conclusion but you cannot remove the skepticism as to whether the thing which is described through the logic of metaphysics is same as the thing described through the experiential knowledge of mysticism. This is where metaphyics fails.

Yes. Logic cannot prove anything about reality. I expect everybody here would agree. Being led to water is not the same as drinking. I thought we'd agreed about this a few times already.

 

One cannot be certain about what it is describing in reality. This is where a one-to-one correspondance between theory and the reality which it claims to map becomes essential.

I'm afraid I have no idea what 'one to one correspondance' means here. One discipline produces a theory and the other produce empirical knowledge. How can these be in a one to one correspondance? They can only be consistent or inconsistent, and only as far as metaphysics is able to go. It does not need saying that having a theory about the truth is not the same as knowing it.

 

And of course we cannot conceive of the truth. If we could then the doctrine of mysticism would have to be nonsense. Given its nature, a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category, that in no case is 'this' or 'that'. that is never 'Lo here or Lo there' , to paraphrase the Gospel of Thomas, it is not difficult to work out why we cannot conceive of it or understand it by doing metaphysics or physics alone. It would be what we are.

 

On reflection, perhaps it was not quite right to say we verify theories by empiricism. Not sure about this. Maybe 'verify' is the wrong word. Not important.

Edited February 6, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Yes. Scientific theorising works as you say. But empriricism is not theorising and it works by verification. That is, we verify theories by the use of empiricism.

 

No we don't agree, we falsify theories by the use of empiricism, we don't verify it, there is a lot of difference between verifying and falsifying, care to read this link --> Falsifiability.

 

In the same way, metaphysics is theorising and works by falsification, or what Peirce calls 'abduction', (inference to the best explanation),

 

A theory will be ruled out as metaphysics as long as it cannot be falsifiable, once a theory provides us a method and makes a series of predictions then we can experiment and testify the theory then it is within the boundaries of science. Such a theory is called as a scientific theory.

 

while mysticism proper is all about empriricism and verification. I think we agree about all this.

 

Mysticism doesn't fall neither under science nor does it fall under metaphysics. Mysticism is experiential knowledge not empiricism, empiricism means acquiring knowledge through the sense organs, experiential knowledge means acquiring knowledge through the knowledge of qualia.

 

The religious scriptures gives us a method and it predicts that one will experience this qualia if one follows this method, the master learns the method from his master and the students learns the method from the master and everytime the method should produce identical experience in subjects if the method is performed correctly. So mysticism works by falsification, if the method doesn't come up with positive evidence then the scripture is wrong or incorrect and it shouldn't be given any further credence and it can be dismissed as rubbish.

 

So the question is do metaphysical theories gives us a method or a prediction to dismiss them or falsify them. In most cases it doesn't and therefore everyone's point of view appears to be logically correct, so how does metaphysics accumulate real knowledge?

 

Yes. I would just add that the scriptures would not be necessary.

 

I doesn't want to do any bias towards any theistic mystcism or non-theisitic mysticism like you do so often which clearly displays your double standards and a bias towards non-theistic mysticism.

 

Aristotle pointed out that logic cannot prove anything about reality, and he is quite obviously correct. Certain or true knowledge does not come from logic.

 

So what value it adds to the knowledge database of humanity if metaphysics doesn't give us any true knowledge, if you cannot falsify a metaphysical theory then it adds no value to the already existing huge body of knowledge in humanity.

 

We agree about this. Neither does it come from books, in my view, but here we seem to disagree.

 

Whether it is a metaphysical theory or whether a model coming from a book, true knowledge is something which comes from falsifying or putting the models to test in reality to see whether it represents any real knowledge or not. I don't have any bias towards metaphysics because Karl popper clearly indicates a metaphysical theory which cannot be falisified in this century could be falsified in the next century and the theory might turn out to be a very good scientific theory. You seem to miss this point showing that you really don't understand how science works.

 

This appears to me to be a complete misunderstanding. I have never even heard such a thing said before. Maybe this the correct approach to practice for those in some tradtions who repeat mantras, but it is not true that mysticism, or the practice of understanding reality, requires the saying of mantras. You cannot put such views on behalf of mysticism. It is misunderstood enough already. If you re-examine your words you will see that they state that Zen Master Hongzhi's method of 'silent illumination' is not part of mysticism, nor the method of counting the breaths, nor a million other methods. Mantras are optional, like this or that way of gripping a golf club.

 

Who or on what basis one puts the demarcation line as to what is mysticism and what it isn't, to me all methods have equal footing, I don't have any bias towards or against any methods, a method is a valid one if it represents some real knowledge, it is dismissed if it doesn't produce any positive results, its as simple as that, you're one who is displaying double standards and dismissing methods based on your personal prejudices rather than based on facts and reality.

 

Of course, all roads lead to Rome. It would be inevitable that we will all have similar experience along the way to the truth since we're heading in the same direction, and in the end we will all arrive at same destination. But every journey will be unique as we all start in different places. It is very clear form the literature that it is wrong to say that this method or that method is necessary, as if there is a rule book. There is no 'should' about it. A form of practice may require a consistent approach, such that the method 'should' be followed if it to be effective, but there are endless methods and we can make up our own if we like. It is just a question of what works best for us.

 

Again you're the one who is saying this shouldn't be called as mysticism or that should not fall under mysticism, you're the one who have a bias on methods, not me, again you are either not aware of how mysticism works in various traditions or you have a bias against theistic mysticism.

 

Advaita by Sankara is theistic mysticism, you go and say to the orthodox mystics of advaita that personal God doesn't exist seperate and distinct from us, they'll laugh at you.

 

The whole Vedas and Upanishads consist only of mantras and yet you say that this shouldn't be on behalf of mysticism, then please don't spread wrong information to people, you're misinformed and you have a bias towards non-theistic mysticism. An advaiti cannot also be an atheist, its logically inconsistent.

 

Yes. Books like the Bible are so difficult to interpret that their longetivity is only a quite weak indication of their truth, at least in science and philosophy, but it is certainly telling that the perennial philosophy remains perennial to this day, since as a philosophical scheme it is more clear and is testable in metaphysics and even to some extent in physics.

 

Which ever religious book or religion it might be it should be falsified through revealation not through physics or metaphysics. All religions have equal footing and they stand on their own, its wrong to have a bias towards one religion and dismissing other religion, there are many christian mystics how do you say that Bible has no truth in it.

 

Yes. Logic cannot prove anything about reality. I expect everybody here would agree. Being led to water is not the same as drinking. I thought we'd agreed about this a few times already.

 

If it doesn't prove anything then how can I be certain that I am being led to the water which is edible, I might very well be led to a poisonous well or there might be a better well containing the fountain of youth to immortality, why do I have to stick to this one path given by metaphysics when it hasn't proved anything, I clearly doesn't want to take this blind path, if you want then All the best to you!!!.

 

I'm afraid I have no idea what 'one to one correspondance' means here. One discipline produces a theory and the other produce empirical knowledge. How can these be in a one to one correspondance? They can only be consistent or inconsistent, and only as far as metaphysics is able to go. It does not need saying that having a theory about the truth is not the same as knowing it.

 

On reflection, perhaps it was not quite right to say we verify theories by empiricism. Not sure about this. Maybe 'verify' is the wrong word. Not important.

 

A theory whether metaphysical or scientific irrespective of whether it is sound or not it should map reality or model reality, there should be a one-to-one correspondance with the entities in the model to the entities in reality or to real world objects.

 

The point is metaphysics is not in one-to-one correspondance with mysticism, metaphysics doesn't model mysticism, it is the religious scriptures which model mysticism and it will be given more credence than metaphysical theories because what is important is not the final result, what is important is a map which models phenomena in reality.

 

 

 

[PeterJ]

No we don't agree, we falsify theories by the use of empiricism, we don't verify it, there is a lot of difference between verifying and falsifying, care to read this link --> Falsifiability.

This is why i added a note at the end opf my [previous [post. We verify empirically that the theory would accord with the facts, but this is not verification in a full sense. In mysticism we verify our theories empirically in a full sense, but not in physics.

 

A theory will be ruled out as metaphysics as long as it cannot be falsifiable, once a theory provides us a method and makes a series of predictions then we can experiment and testify the theory then it is within the boundaries of science. Such a theory is called as a scientific theory.

I'll have to stop here. Clearly you believe I am an idiot.

 

I'll break the rule I made for myself and suggest you go to philpapers.com and look far an essay called 'From Metaphysics to Mysticism'. This gives my view. I am not prepared to argue with you about it since you make no meaningful objections just send up endless flak.

[DrRocket]

 

I'll have to stop here. Clearly you believe I am an idiot.

 

 

This is rather too vague. Belief, as with religion or mysticism, can arise in the absense of empirical data or logic.

 

Immortal has been deprived of neither in forming what you propose to be his conclusion. That conclusion would therefore be more accurately described as a deduction rather merely a belief.

[immortal]

This is why i added a note at the end opf my [previous [post. We verify empirically that the theory would accord with the facts, but this is not verification in a full sense. In mysticism we verify our theories empirically in a full sense, but not in physics.

 

 

I'll have to stop here. Clearly you believe I am an idiot.

 

 

I never said that, after a very long quarrel for months or so, you disclosed that you're arguing from a metaphysical point of view and after so much of misunderstanding you have revealed your point of view. How am I supposed to know what your view is if you are not willing to tell it.

 

I'll break the rule I made for myself and suggest you go to philpapers.com and look far an essay called 'From Metaphysics to Mysticism'. This gives my view. I am not prepared to argue with you about it since you make no meaningful objections just send up endless flak.

 

From Metaphysics to mysticism by Peter Jones. I guess you're Peter Jones.

 

However my objections to your view is understandable because of the following reasons.

 

Firstly the non-dualistic Advaita by Sankara doesn't hold a neutral metaphysical position, advaita holds a positive nondual metaphysical position. God gives positive answers to all metaphysical questions. Advaita doesn't say that the psychophysiological phenomena of mind and matter exist and do not exist like the middle way approach in Nagarjuna.

 

It says mind and matter exists and also unity exists but mind and matter is not eternal and therefore not fundamental. Both Mind and matter are products of a personal God and therefore mind and matter dissolves into the personal God and finally personal God himself will say that you and I are one and he will dissolve in you. You are unity, you are existence, you are Brahman, you are fundamental and you exist eternally. It doesn't take a neutral position as to what the universe "IS", it says positively that universe is Unity but the middle way approach of Nagarjuna believe in emptiness or sunya and it is not the same as unity of advaita. Sankara clearly says that something exists and the universe is made of that something on the contrary Nagarjuna neither says that unity exist nor he says that unity doesn't exist, he takes a neutral position which reduces to emptiness or nihilism. Advaita is not nihilism, Sankara positively says Brahman or unity exists and it is real.

 

Advaita is Monotheism which finally reduces to non-dualism, advaita clearly says this "IS" space, this "IS" time, this "IS" matter, this "IS" God and from god finally it reduces to this "IS" universe or unity which is the ultimate non-dual reality. It holds a positive metaphysical position which is defensible by experiential knowledge if not defensible by logic. It has a single truth, it doesn't have two truths and that truth is Brahman or unity is real and fundamental and it exists and it is "something" and not emptiness.

 

Therefore the doctrine of theistic mysticism doesn't take a neutral metaphysical position and hence not all doctrines of mystical traditions and their results are consistent with your metaphysical theory.

 

Einstein was not wrong when he said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. There can be a scientific or a metaphysical theory which can describe and comprehend the universe with a positive metaphysical position through empiricism or through experiential knowledge.

 

Mathematics is not the topic here, but so close is its connection with metaphysics that for the sake of the plausibility of our argument we must note one crucial mathematical implication. This is because it might be objected that Proposition b) cannot be true on the grounds that to be considered reasonable, in the sense this word has been used here, a theory of the world as a whole, of everything there is, would have to be a complete and consistent formal axiomatic system of sufficient complexity to include mathematics. This is usually thought to be an impossible object. This objection, however, only draws attention to one of the most credible features of a neutral metaphysical position. The incompleteness theorem would be a proof of it. Gödel showed that the problem of completing a consistent metaphysical theory arises for formal reasons, that it is not a lack of data, a fault with human reasoning or because the universe is paradoxical, and that it is not necessarily a fault of mysticism that it cannot just come out and describe the universe in a straightforward way. It is simply a property of (sufficiently complex) formal axiomatic systems of description that they cannot describe a universe which is complete and consistent. To say that the universe is reasonable, however, is to say that it is complete and consistent. Accordingly, if a metaphysical theory cannot be both then it cannot be true. If such a theory were true then the universe would be unreasonable. When looked at in this way the incompleteness theorem is a proof of Proposition a). Following this, in a mathematical translation, Proposition b) would state that a neutral metaphysical position describes an exceptional kind of system, one for which all metaphysical statements with a Fregeian truth-value would be undecidable, consistent with its unconditioned axiom, the unmarked piece of paper from which Brown's calculus of distinctions emerges, and as such is not constrained by the incompleteness theorem. Proposition c) would state that the universe itself is such a system, as would be consistent with its reasonableness and our reason.

 

--Peter Jones

 

Human beings are not mere axiomatic systems, they are beyond that, they can realise the truth of Godel's senetences and Roger Penrose thinks that the human mind is non-computable. Godel's incompleteness theorem simply states that mathematics is incomplete, if the human mind is non -computable then the universe is non-computable and therefore the universe can be described in a non-computable and reasonable way. It is in this hope I stick with the positive metaphysical position for a fundamental scientific or metaphysical or mystical theory hoping that the universe is reasonable and describable.

Edited February 7, 2012 by immortal

[DrRocket]

From Metaphysics to mysticism by Peter Jones. I guess you're Peter Jones.

 

That explains a lot.

[immortal]

Indeed!!